Simplicius comments on Some Thoughts Are Too Dangerous For Brains to Think - Less Wrong

15 Post author: WrongBot 13 July 2010 04:44AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (311)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Simplicius 23 February 2011 10:06:41PM *  4 points [-]

Actually I think that if differences in group (sex, race, ethnicity, class, caste) intelligence (IQ) means and distributions proved to be of genetic origins this would be a net gain in utility since it would increase public acceptance of genetic engineering and spending on gene based therapies.

BTW We already know that the differences are real as in they are measured and we have tried our very best to get rid of say cultural bias, and proving that they aren't culturally biased is impossible so its deceiving to talk "if differences proved to be real" as some posters have done, its more accurate to say "if differences proved to be mostly genetic in origin".

Which reminds me, we also know that some of the differences are caused by environmental factors, the so called hereditarnian (known as nature or genetic) position is actually dominated by a model that ascribes about equal weight to environment and genetics. And even experts who are generally labelled as "nurture" supporters like say the respected James Flynn have said that they aren't ruling out a small genetic component.

Comment author: Zack_M_Davis 23 February 2011 11:11:14PM *  3 points [-]

experts who are generally labelled as "nurture" supporters like say the respected Richard Lynn

I think you may be confusing Richard Lynn (author of such books as Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis) with James Flynn (of Flynn effect fame).

Comment author: Simplicius 24 February 2011 11:47:08AM *  0 points [-]

Yes I actually did. Corrected.

This is an interesting failure since before I checked back on this post I was 100% certain I put James Flynn.

Comment author: wedrifid 24 February 2011 03:43:44PM 4 points [-]

This is an interesting failure since before I checked back on this post I was 100% certain I put James Flynn.

100% certain and wrong? Ooops, there goes your entire epistemic framework. :)

Comment author: Simplicius 24 February 2011 09:49:54PM *  2 points [-]

Lol yes I see why using that phrase on this site is a bit funny.

Still updating on the language used here. Wonderful site.